"The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others" Deputy Bob Hill.............................................
Trevor Pitmans Blog.......................................BALDTRUTH"

Saturday, November 30, 2013

PLEASE BE WARNED - THERE ARE SWEAR WORDS ON THIS POSTING - IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED THEN GO NO FURTHER

DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER, EMMA MARTINS. EVEN THE JERSEY TROLL HAS A GUARDIAN ANGEL.

PLEASE BE WARNED - THERE ARE SWEAR WORDS ON THIS POSTING - IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED THEN GO NO FURTHER

"THE JERSEY TROLL"

"BEEN AT IT FOR YEARS"

"HE HAS THE PLACE SURROUNDED"

"HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE JERSEY TROLL HAS COME CALLING? - SIMPLE - HE SWEARS AND PERSONALISES EVERYTHING ANONYMOUSLY -OR SO HE BELIEVES"

People say you shouldn't feed the troll. I absolutely agree with this. So, what I do over the course of a year is gather his vile bile comments and put them in storage. Then, when I feel that the need arises I publish them in a blog posting so people cane see how twisted this certain individual really is. The Jersey Troll and I have history. You will notice that I don't name him on this posting. This Troll has a Guardian Angel. Not just any Guardian Angel. His Guardian Angel is the Guardian of Data. One must be careful in these dark days.

But as we well know the Troll leaves more than just vile bile comments. He leaves a footprint. With every comment he writes on my blog and the Internet over time you begin to see a writing pattern emerge. Even from comments. You begin to notice the pattern The obvious ones being:

Syvret , Pitmans , the use of the word "Dickhead" "Fuck" "we are talking about you all over Facebook" we are watching you and so on.

I believe there are times when you must face up to the one who believes he has no face. He has had some wonderful names over the years. James Le Gallais , Julie Hanning, Sue Young,Gary Cabot and many more. He doesn't realise that Jersey is so very small and the people who hate the Pitmans, Syvret plus my good self with such vile bile is very very small. In fact I can only think of one person who fits that criteria. You see, people can disagree with the likes of the Deputies Pitmans and so on but only one does it with so much venom. That is the give away.

When I first started blogging back in April 2010 I started receiving the comments from the troll but under the name of Gazza. Gazza ran a very vile blog. He even had politicians posting on it and to cut a very long story short it even cost Deputy Sean Power his job as Housing Minister. The Blog postings can be read here.

"Thats a load of crap, I started the Blog after exchanging e-mails with Tony Gallichon, well arguing to be exact, Planet Jersey just so happened to like it and the Blog has had over 1,000 hits in 4 days. The Blog is there to expose the lies you and your cohorts have been chucking down everybodies necks so far about Graham Power being innocent when he isn't. Lenny Harper was a rogue who abused Jersey Tax Payers money and is a proven lier. The Blog exposes that conclusively and all that read it agree. It has nothing to do with safe guarding child abusers its there to expose rogue coppers and a criminal Senator. Why you protect these people fuck knows."

"Where is this deniers Blog? Sounds cool to me after getting the feedback on the Syvret scum which linger around him. Fucking hell thinking of taking some comments to the police. You can post on my Blog under anon. All comments are welcome. This is dynamite, even got support from other Senators now who are fucking loving it!"

Paul Letherbarrow has left a new comment on your post "BLANCHE PIERRE":

"What a load of shite. Who cares if these cases were dropped? They were only scumbags trying to get compensation for trivial punishments like being flicked with a towel. Fuck em I reckon."

(I must point out that in the above comment the Troll is using the name of Paul Letherbarrow. I know Paul who is a decent man as does the Troll. This Troll is sick. RS)

"You lot are a right bunch of gormless fuckers. Did you and LEONARD MILES VANDENBORN exchange child porn? You go on about justice all the time but you are a pedo yourself. CID should look into you pedo scum."

There you get to see the unique style of the Troll. A style that has been perfected since early 2008 on a site called PlanetJersey. He even had that site surrounded. Then he started using the name Gary Cabo. This Gary Cabo started messaging me on Facebook. I mean, who would seriously go to all this trouble? That is why it can only be one twisted person who has nothing else.

GARY CABOYou can't see it can you.
Who owns JT and monitors everything you do now?
Tell you what.
Your post on the Farce blog has just been made invisible.
We will give you a break.

1/29, 11:26am

Rico SordaWhat he hell are you on about? who are you? what's the we bit? are you a gang?
And what the hell have JT and porn got to do with me? are you threatening me

1/29, 11:30am

GARY CABOTYour post has just been made invisible on the farce blog.
Threatening? Go to the Police.
You use a Jersey Telecom network and the States of Jersey owns the Network. We know your activities.
Bye bye.

Rico SordaWhat the Farce blog did to Deputy Labey was outrageous. Who ever leaked that email and passed it on to the Faece Blog needs to be charged. I have never heard of you Gary Cabo and the fact that you have taken time out to threaten me with your gibberish leaves me a little puzzled.

1/29, 11:47am

GARY CABOYou insulted a member of my family.
You are not a target but you will make yourself one if you do not refrain from cyber insult.
Have to go.
Enjoy your day.

There you get to see the pattern. And now let us look at the recent comments that I have been receiving. It will not take a genius to work out that it is the same person. Who is capable of spewing so much toxic venom? The writing suggests one person. Lets look what has turned up this year.

Well done for changing your profile picture on Facebook to something that fits your whole presence on the Net. See you have some dog with you as well, ooopps, sorry is that your wife! Fucking hell ******* must be impressed with you. on LE ROCQUIER SCHOOL - CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT -SCRUTINY -3

"I believe it is a case of funding. Different approaches for different people. Medication or no medication. Every sufferer is different. No two people with the same mental illness are the same. You have two look beyond the illness and find the person. This is one aspect I have found to be lacking. All doctors and so on who work in MH need to also work very closely with the family. But is the funding and the will there for a MH service to be proud of and fit for the 21st Century. We can talk about all the therapies in the world but do we have the funding. Will the white paper consultation every come to fruition?"

You really are fucked up in thinking you are some kind of super journalist who can find answers to this when its nothing to do with you. Its just like your stupid facebook thread on suicide, you must know more fucked up people in Jersey than the rest of us thats for sure. All menatally retarded. on LE ROCQUIER SCHOOL - CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT -SCRUTINY -3

"it simply makes me even more determined." You are by far one of the biggest arseholes on the Internet at the moment. People tell you that you will not get anywhere with this because this teacher's business is none of yours, period. What the fuck is bullying about that? you write so many stupid posts that get nowhere we've lost count and Ian Le Marquand has said himself you write nothing but crap. on LE ROCQUIER SCHOOL - CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT -SCRUTINY -3

There you go. Just a little snapshot of the same individual But let us save the best till last. You see, you don't have to take my word for it being the same individual. You can simply take the said individuals word for it. Everything he say's in the audio clip below points to the above. You don't need to be Colombo - Starsky & Hutch - Cagney & Lacey etc to work it out. A Troll who's only existence seems to be to spout vile toxic venom. A troll who got caught on Audio due to some very quick thinking. A troll that was only going to get a Parish Hall enquiry on said audio.

Stuart Syvret told Judge Pitchers that he couldn't work on his case because of a disturbing telephone call. Judge Pitchers received the transcript of the call. Advocate Baker told Judge Pitchers that it was being dealt with at Parish Hall level. Judge Pitchers was a little shocked at this reply and mentioned to Baker that Parish Hall was for trivial matters and that this was far from trivial. He called a halt to proceedings. What happened next was pure Jersey. Baker must have phoned the Police straight away because at 3pm that very day the Troll was hauled back down the station and charged. That is the Jersey Way. I was in court.

I have comments I simply can't publish concerning friends of mine. They are vile.

Having read the toxic comments above now listen to the clip.

Not rocket science is it. The troll was fined £400 in the Magistrate Court for the phone call and when in the dock blamed it all on Stuart Syvret.

Remember the Guardian Angel of Data? Well, she is some Guardian. She managed to get the troll and Nurse M on the same Data Protection racket against Stuart Syvret.

The troll said "The Nurse M, This guy's going to kill your family"

Just think about what he said and what he was involved with concerning Emma Martins and The Data Protection Law.

And just incase you still can't decide this got sent to me. The Deputies Pitman have said that they don't mind me publishing it.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

PLEASE DON'T WORRY MY CHILDREN I HAVE COME THROUGH THIS MOST TERRIBLE OF TIMES AS THE VICTIM. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS

SENATOR BAILHACHE, EVERY DAME STEEL NEEDS A GHOST WRITER. NOW JUMPING UP AND DOWN AS HIS BEST SELLER IS BEING SUPPRESSED

COULD HAVE BEEN A BAILIFF OF JERSEY

"A VERY SIMPLE POSTING."

"THE BAILHACHE AND THE DEAN"

"THESE TWO ARE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER"

"THE BALIHACHE REPORT - WRITTEN BY DAME STEEL"

WHAT ABOUT HG?

This brave lady has been forgotten. This is the saddest part of this sorry affair. They, the Bailhache and The Dean, don't give a damn about the alleged victim. Bailhache has never given a damn about victims of abuse.

Dame Steel and her report is best forgotten about. Sir Philip wants it public - of course he does - it's his bloody report. His mate Steel wrote it. Someone has pulled the rug from under his feet.

He say's the report clears the Dean of any wrong doing - of course it does- his heavily conflicted mate Dame Steel wrote it for him.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH????

I Hope for the sake of HG that this diabolical report written on behalf of Bailhache never sees the light of day. I believe it will be another hammer blow for HG. She was never even interviewed or listened to. I really hope that HG has prevented it from being published. She would have every right to do so and I would support her fully in that decision if it was her.

Bob Hill has ripped this Dame Steel sham to bits.

I pray for the day that the Bailhache Brothers have no say or influence in Jersey. Only then will the light shine through the darkness.

I said that I would ask for answers as this was a very serious issue. That is exactly what I did along with Deputy Tadier.

On Wednesday the 20th November we had a meeting with the head of the States of Jersey IT Department along with the head of the IT Service Desk. We sat down for an hour and sorted the issues out. Yes, I was blocked across the whole of the gov.je. For this they have apologised and I have accepted their apology. We discussed the process of blocking and how it was a mistake to block me. They are now looking at their procedures. They also apologised for saying I was abusive when obviously I wasn't and explained to me in great detail how that mistake came about.

I have to say I found them to be very professional and in my opinion very honest. I always prefer sitting down and talking to people face to face.

I was shown the original email - with the States Members name redacted - but I was able to deduce who it was. I promised to keep it private and I will. They asked me to be blocked from their gov.je nothing more. It really does amaze me and shows just how blinded some of these States Members prefer to be.

I would also like to thank Deputy Tadier for helping me sort this out.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

"HE WAS DESCRIBED AS BEING THE MOST VIOLENT AND CRUEL OF THEM ALL IN COURT EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY SAID OFFENCE"

"LE ROCQUIER SCHOOL - THE CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT- 4 "

"JUST A QUICK POSTING"

"THE SHOOTING PISTOL INCIDENT"

THERE COMES A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE TO ASK DOES ANYONE REALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN ONCE THEY PASS THROUGH THE SCHOOL GATES?"

"THERE ARE 51 STATES MEMBERS - ONLY A VERY SMALL HANDFUL SEEM CONCERNED - 5 AT MOST"

"HOW MANY STATES MEMBERS HAVE CHILDREN AT SCHOOL?"

2 "An internal disciplinary procedure was then followed in respect of the teacher. This involved an investigation by officers from the Education, Sport and Culture Department and a disciplinary panel hearing chaired by the Director of Education. The Department can confirm appropriate action has been taken. "

One of the main major concerns coming out of ''Operation Rectangle" the decades long child abuse in state run care homes in jersey is the culture of concealment. Everything is secret. No one has a right to know anything. Look at the written answers below and just marvel at the in house secrecy concerning a starting pistol being discharged in a school gym and a child ending up in accident and emergency after THE CHILD REPORTED IT TO HIS MOTHER ON RETURNING HOME.

A disciplinary panel chaired by the Director of Education, Mario Lundy. I mean really - are we being serious here.

What really concerns me is the lack of questioning by the vast majority of states members and there amazing inability to show any concern that Education Sport and Culture are investigating themselves with all matters remaining secret. How can that be good for anybody? Simply ridiculous. The teacher was fined £1,000 in the Magistrate Court and has now returned to work.

Let us just recap on what is remaining secret here. I mean, was there a serious breakdown in policy and procedures? How does anybody know that they have been put right if no one is allowed to see the reports. We are talking about children. Yes, children or don't we give a damn about their safety?

Nothing has been learnt. Absolutely nothing. We have a Committee of Enquiry into child abuse about to start and yet we are shrouded in secrecy.

"I came home from work on what I thought was a normal day until my son came in from school after catching the bus home and said to me "You will never guess what happened to me at school today" I looked at him and saw that he had a bloodshot eye and black specks all over his face.

I asked him what had happened and he said "(teacher’s name) shot me in the face with a starter pistol" I could not believe my ears! I thought when you sent your child to school they were in a safe place!! I then went on to ask him numerous questions including why had I not been contacted by the school, what time did it happen, did he not get to medical and A&E? Once it had all registered I asked him how exactly it happened and did anyone else see what happened and when it happened?

My son then went on to tell me it was during his 2nd lesson of the day, he was playing 5 aside football in the sports hall, (why would a teacher be in possession of a starter pistol at an indoor 5 a side football match?) was talking to his mate and something made him turn around and as he did he was temporarily blinded by what hit him in the eye. He told me that The teacher quickly took him into the toilets to go and wash his eye and face and then when they came back into the hall (teacher’s name) told the class that none of them were to repeat what had just happened to anyone or he would get the sack.

My Son then went to medical to seek advice about his eye and saw the head of P.E. at the same time and told him what had just happened. After this he took him back to class where, my son told me, 5 of his classmates told him that (teacher’s name) had said just before he pulled the trigger "watch this I'm going to shoot "pupil x"

As soon as I heard the full story I was straight on the phone to the school to speak to the head teacher, when I asked him why I had not been contacted, the moment this had happened (the second class of the day) he told me he knew nothing about the incident and would have to go off and speak to his staff and come back to me, which he did within minutes.

I then took my son to A&E to get his eye checked which clearly should have been done via school that morning but WAS NOT.

I then took it upon myself the following morning to get in contact with the Education Department to report it and I also reported it to the police.

I still need a lot of questions answered, which include: -

Why did a teacher have access to a gun?

Why did he have it in an enclosed environment during a 5 aside football lesson?

Why was I not contacted for such a major incident in a school?

Why was the headmaster not informed?

My son and my family feel let down by the school and the Education Department; when answering questions in the States from Deputy Trevor Pitman, the Education Minister had said that I had been kept informed of the case throughout. This is not how I see it because you can imagine my horror when I discovered the teacher had been allocated a class to teach this term (school roster sent to parents). This is after he had been found guilty in the magistrate’s court of discharging a firearm and still subject to an internal investigation. It was only as a result of Deputy Pitman’s question I discovered the rosters were printed some four months earlier.

I would have hoped the Education Department would have warned me about (teacher’s name) appearing on the roster, if the Department were keeping me informed as Deputy Ryan said it was.

Deputy Ryan also said, in the states, that my son had made a full recovery. If he was talking in the physical sense he could be right but this episode has had a lasting damaging emotional effect on our whole family who has lost confidence in the school and the department and I no longer feel my children are safe at school.

I have also discovered, partly due to Deputy Pitman’s questions, that the teacher, or the terrifying incident, is subject of an internal enquiry. I have not been told what the Terms of reference are for this enquiry, is it a disciplinary enquiry, a procedural enquiry, what is it if I am being kept informed I should have been told this."(END)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR
EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE
BY DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 19th NOVEMBER 2013

Will the Minister advise –

(i) how many investigations have taken place in relation to the starting pistol
incident at Le Rocquier school;

(ii) what these were;

(iii) who conducted them;

(iv) how many have been concluded and how many are ongoing;

(v) what the conclusions were?

Will the Minister be publishing these reports, and if not, why not?
Answer
There are five investigations into the incident as follows:

An investigation was carried out by States of Jersey Police immediately after the incident.
The outcome of that is a matter of public record.

An internal disciplinary procedure was then followed in respect of the teacher. This involved
an investigation by officers from the Education, Sport and Culture Department and a
disciplinary panel hearing chaired by the Director of Education. The Department can
confirm appropriate action has been taken.
All matters relating to internal disciplinary proceedings for States of Jersey staff are treated
as confidential.
Information was provided to the disciplinary panel on the basis of confidentiality and is
therefore exempt under Article 3.2 (b) of the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official
Information. In addition, publication is exempt under Article 3a (xiii) of the Code on the
grounds that that it would prejudice employer/employee relationships or the effective
conduct of personnel management.
The documents produced for the disciplinary hearing refer directly to the employee so the
Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 also applies. There is a presumption against disclosure of
sensitive personal information.

A separate investigation was carried out into health and safety issues and accident reporting
processes relating to this incident. This was conducted by an officer from the ESC
Department. It was concluded that school sports activities could continue without starting

pistols and the firearms were removed from all States schools as a result. Other actions
resulting from this review have not yet been concluded.
This is an internal report that contains confidential information relating to a number of
individuals and there are no plans for publication.

To assist the governing body of the school the ESC Director has commissioned a health and
safety review of the school by independent external advisers. This will provide the school
with an assessment of specific issues that might need to be addressed in terms of day-to-day
policy and practice. There are no plans to publish this review as public disclosure was not
part of the remit when it was commissioned.

The Health and Safety Inspectorate were informed by the Law Officers of the incident and
are reviewing the case with respect to the legal requirements under the Health and Safety at
Work (Jersey) Law 1989. Disclosure of information is restricted under this law. A copy of
their report will be forwarded to the Attorney General.

"We have investigated the issue you reported and we had previously been requested to block Rico's email address at around the time of the Historical Abuse investigation after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails."

Let me explain what happened.

During 2012 I was sending out very well researched and evidenced based emails concerning the illegal suspension in November 2008 of then Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM. The evidence got quite alarming when I started on Operation Blast - the so called secret files on states members. (Links will be added in the comment section). The reason for copying all states members into these emails was so they had some understanding as to what was going on when questions were asked on the floor of the States of Jersey. I didn't want anyone to say "I DIDN'T KNOW."

As the weeks and months went by I became increasingly more frustrated that no one would reply to my emails or simply acknowledge what I had sent. These covered a range of topics. Even though I never received replies I continued to keep them informed. I did find this a little strange but let it go.

Things came to a head when I started researching the Le Rocquier School Starting Pistol Incident that can be followed here:

I had emailed the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel - The Minister for Education and his Assistant Minister regarding this serious incident and the secrecy surrounding the internal reports. I received no replies. I contacted Deputy Tadier on his personal email address and along with VFC organised a meeting. At this meeting I asked the members present, along with the scrutiny officer, if they had received my emails - they said no. I said. I think my email address has been blocked. I got the look of "Yeah right" and who could blame them.

I asked Deputy Tadier if he would look into this for me as this was very serious. I had been angry that previous important sensitive emails concerning a private matter on the gov.je might also have been blocked. I was also thinking who had the right to block me. There is always a spam box for states members if they don't want to read or receive emails. But from a member of the public I would say this is very last resort.

There was only one place to go and that was to the States of Jersey IT Department.

They have been most helpful. I again thank Deputy Tadier for representing in this matter. Let me now take you through the chain of events.

On the 29TH October 2013, Deputy Tadier, contacted the SoJ IT Department and explained that he couldn't receive emails from me. They then sent me some test emails and discovered that my email was in fact blocked.

From:

Sent: 30 October 2013 16:22

To: Montfort Tadier

Subject: rico sorder

Dear Deputy Tadier,

We have investigated the issue you reported and we had previously been requested to block Rico's email address at around the time of the Historical Abuse investigation after he had been sending inappropriate and abusive emails.

Can I ask who asked you to block Mr Sorda's email and why the emails were blocked to all addresses, not simply that of that complainant?

I understand your comments about needing to protect SoJ employees, however, we as States Members are not employees, but public representatives. As such, it is important that constituents are free and able to contact us when they need to.

I am also concerned that we were not told that Mr Sorda has been blocked.

I would be grateful for a response to the above points.

Many thanks and Kind regards,

Montfort

From:

Sent: 31 October 2013 13:21

To: Montfort Tadier

Cc: ……. ……….

Subject: Re: Rico Sorder

Dear Deputy Tadier,

In response to your questions,

The request to block Mr Sorder was made by the then Deputy Director of ISD.

The policy then (and it is still the policy now though I will instigate a review) is when such a blocking is implemented (which is only ever done in extremis) it is across the whole of the email system. The concept being if a person sends an extremely abusive email we have a duty of care to the SoJ staff and other users of the email system.

The majority of such blocking requests, of which there are very few, tend to be initiated by States Members, and will be authorised by the Head of Information Services or appointed deputy. In some cases the approval of HR (usually the Director of Employment Relations ) will also be sort.

Following your request we will immediately unblock Mr Ricos email address. We will also review our policy and other blocked email addresses. Part of the process review will be to determine the best way of handling States Members email under different processes to that of the civil servant side.

It is however likely that if further abusive emails are sent then some form of action will need to be taken.

I'm happy to discuss further if required,

Regards,

From: Montfort Tadier

Sent: 01 November 2013 16:19

To: …… ……

Cc: …….. ……..

Subject: RE: Rico Sorder

Hi ……..,

Thanks again for that information.

I do have further questions, however.

1. Can you advise me who made the original complaint?

2. What date was the complaint received and when was the block put on?

3. Can you send me a copy of the offending email(s)? And failing this, can you advise what the nature of the abusive/inappropriate material was and to whom it was sent?

4. Can you send me any policy you have on this matter, including any warning that would be given (i) to the alleged offending party and (ii) what notice would be given to potential recipients, who may be in regular legitimate contact with the alleged offender on other matters? And what appeals process there are in place against such blocks?

Many thanks.

In the meantime, I wish you a good weekend.

Kind regards,

Montfort

From: Montfort Tadier

Sent: 06 November 2013 13:45

To: Montfort Tadier;

Cc:

Subject: RE: Rico Sorder

Dear ….. et Al.

Can I ask if you have had a chance to consider these questions?

I have now been asked by the individual in question to raise this matter directly with you, as the block resulted in the individual not being able to contact the Health Department on a very sensitive and urgent matter - as a result, he presumed that his emails were being ignored. This caused unnecessary anxiety and is, in my opinion, quite unacceptable.

I would appreciate it if you would could get back to me at your earliest convenience so I know what avenue to pursue.

Kind regards,

Montfort

From: …… …..

Sent: 11 November 2013 10:27

To: Montfort Tadier

Subject: RE: FW: oral question 6792

Dear Deputy Tadier,

We have managed to restore our service desk system to a point prior to the upgrade and have discovered the call relating to Mr Sorder. The call was logged in our system at 10:48 on the 19th March 2012.

The actual request, which was made by a state’s member, was to block all messages to themselves from ....... ..... ..........

In this case it seems that no request was made for the block to be implemented states wide. The fact it was implemented in that way was an error on behalf of the officer actioning the call.

As discussed we are reviewing our process relating to email blocking and I will ensure that you are kept informed.

The IS department apologises to Mr Sorda for any distress this has caused, I am of course willing to do so in person.

Regards,

As one can imagine I found it hard to believe what Deputy Tadier was telling me so I asked to see the emails. It has taken from the 29th October to the 14th November to get some simple answers. What concerns me is the change in tone from the first email to the last one as explained in my email to the SoJ IT Department below.

I'm left with more questions than I have answers. This has been a very serious issue and has caused me great concern. I will lay out your previous answers in a timeline so that we can follow them more easily.

Having replied to test emails from Connor King and establishing that my email had been blocked on the Gov.je system Deputy Tadier received a reply from ..... ...... Mr ....... stated that from their investigation I had been accused of sending inappropriate and abusive emails. I strongly refute these allegation and would like to see the evidence . I have sent out a lot of evidence and facts that might be hard for some States Members to digest but never abuse.

I am left puzzled by the last email that totally contradicts the previous emails. I have no doubt that Mr ........ knows how to conduct an investigation and could not have got it so wrong.

The question is an easy one. Who made the call on the 19th March 2012?

I know from talking to other states members that they have been advised to mark annoying emails down as spam. It really is that simple. I was blocked across the whole system.

An investigation by Mr ....... that's now wrong - someone pushing wrong buttons that blocks me across the whole gov.je the best way to clear this up is for me to meet with you and Deputy Tadier.

The blocking of my email was very serious for reasons I can't divulge here. A

I thank you for your help in these matters.

I'm free between 12.30 and 2pm on weekdays

Kind Regards

Now, and this is just my hunch, the truth of the blocking lies in the first email. Who phoned or emailed the complaint? Who was I emailing at the time of the blocking? The Jersey Law Office and more specifically the Office of Attorney General. An IT Expert just accidentally pushed the wrong button and banned me across the whole gov.je data base? Not having it.

This was the email I sent on the 16th March 2012 to the Jersey Law Office and all States Members. A member of the public doing the work, research and asking the questions.

Even I have to admit that the last email I sent before been blocked was just about perfect That was an email full of facts from a Citizen Blogger.

During my research into the illegal suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power some alarming develoments have occured. Former Chief of Police Graham power wanted access to his secure safe through his represenative. ACO David Warcup wasn't happy about this

December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office. Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.

December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.

January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The letter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.

January 22nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office. This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors" of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?

An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret.

I have also reproduced part of a letter from former Head of HR Ian Critch to Graham Power dated 22nd December 2008. What jumps out at me is that David Warcup was getting legal advice.

I will quote Mr Critch;

"Mr Warcup has though spoken with me and he has concerns about the process for access previously discussed with you. His concerns principally relate to matters of disclosure relating to the current criminal case and legal advice he has received. I must advise therefore that he is taking further advice on this matter and he will revert to me as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you wish to simply supply the code then we would be grateful"

1.What legal advice did David warcup receive that resulted in him breaking into Graham Powers secure Safe when Graham Power was suspended under a neutral act and could be returning to work very shortly.

2. What legal advice did David Warcup receive that resulted in a locksmith being able to attend and open Mr Powers secure safe and not a lawyer or Constable? On the 9th January 2009 Ian Critch writes to Graham Power saying there are problems which Mr Power replies to on the 12th January 2009 and states;

"The searching of the locked cabinet in my office in order to establish whether it contains a copy of my terms and conditions is a ten minute task which has now been subject of correspondence for over a month. Throughout all of this time I have asked only that a person representing my interests be present when this was done. This was to ensure fairness, vouch for the authenticity of anything which was found, or confirm that nothing was found, and to recover on my behalf a document to which I was entitled. We appeared to agree that this person would be Advocate Lakeman, and he was therefore provided with a sealed envelope containing the information necessary for this agreement to move forward. Since that apparently fair and acceptable arrangement was agreed, objections have been made through you, the latest being in your letter dated 9th January 2009 in which you state that it is not possible for him to be present because the cabinet contains “very confidential information” which it would be inappropriate for Advocate Lakeman “or anyone else outside of the service” to have sight of. As you are aware, it was never the intention that my representative would take an interest in any matters other than the task for which they were appointed, namely attempting to recover a true copy of my terms and conditions on my behalf. Given that the copy which should be held in your department is inexplicably missing, my concerns on this issue are natural and understandable. You state that you offer your personal assurance that any personal items contained in the cabinet will be delivered to me, but do not say how this will be achieved, given that you also appear to be in the category of persons who will not be allowed to be present or view the contents

3. Why does David Warcup then lie under Oath to Wiltshire where he states and I quote;

"In view of the fact that I did not have access to the safe combination contact was made with Mr Power to obtain the combination. Following an exchange of messages between Mr Power's appointed contact and the force, I established that Mr Power refused to disclose the combination of the safe as a result of which I arranged for a locksmith to attend."

"At 14"30 hrs onn 22nd January 2009 I was present along with Detective Superintendent Bonnie (Wiltshire..rs) and Inspector Burmingham when the safe was opened. A check was made of the contents and a schedule prepared of the items contained therein"

"The following documents were removed from the safe were later copied and forwarded to Detective Superintendent Bonnie."

"In the safe I also found a sealed white envelope marked as follows 'S Syvret' which was date stamped 10th April 2007. When opened the envelope was found to contain an audio tape. A transcript of the audio tape was subsequently made and is contained on 41 pages. A copy of the transcript has been forwarded to Superintendent Bonnie" End

This needs explaining. It all comes down to what legal advice David Warcup was getting. did the Law Office give David warcup the green light to break into Graham poers secure safe/cabinet yes or no. Or, did david warcup decide to break into Graham Powers off his own back? I don't think so.

He was receiving advice from the Law office. this would have been fromm the SG of the time Tim le Cocq or the Attorney General William Bailhache.

Did one of the above advice David warcup to go ahead and break into Graham powers secure Safe /Cabinet whilest he was suspended as a neutral act? If not then what did David Warcup think he was doing - there are excellent fishing locations around Jersey apart from Graham Powers secure safe.

Look Forward to your prompt reply

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda

HERE IS THE REPLY ON THE DAY OF THE BLOCKING

Tim Allen

To Me

19 Mar 2012

Dear Mr Sorda,

The Attorney General has asked me to respond to your email.

It would not be appropriate for this office to enter into correspondence with a member of the public about a matter in which they have no direct interest.

We do not propose to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the contents of your email in any way. However, as a matter of general application, and for your future guidance, what advice may or may not have been given by this department to any person on any matter and whether or not any advice has been given at all is a matter that remains confidential and any advice which had been given would be covered by legal professional privilege.